Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />June 25, 2020 <br />Page 23 of 24 <br /> <br />for him is the parking in that area. He is sympathetic to the idea that the retail tenant the <br />applicant would like to market this property to is only in favor for the parking that has <br />been suggested by the applicant. As the fellow commissioners have pointed out though, <br />that seems to be contrary to what we are being told by the comprehensive plan. In all <br />honesty, the applicant’s parking suggestion is not providing any buffer. He cannot <br />support the parking for that area. <br /> <br />Brauneis asks if staff’s recommendations still maintain that buffer. <br /> <br />Rice says that it does. He reads the resolution and staff’s two conditions. He mentions <br />that the applicant is only agreeing to staff’s second condition. <br /> <br />Moline says he would like to make a motion to approve the resolution with the two <br />conditions as drafted. <br /> <br />Diehl asks if that would mean that they would allow the 55 foot setback. <br /> <br />Rice says no because according to how the resolution is drafted, it would only allow a <br />60 foot setback and that setback would be for the building and parking. <br /> <br />Diehl says he agrees with what Rice said about the 55 foot setback. It does not seem <br />very substantial and if that setback is meaningful for the development, he is fine <br />approving that portion. He also agrees though that the proposal as it stands right now is <br />giving up the needed buffer because of the parking location. He asks Vice Chair Rice <br />how they should make this motion. <br /> <br />Rice says that they would just have to make a motion to amend the resolution from a 60 <br />to 55 foot setback. <br /> <br />Howe moves and Moline seconds a motion to approve Resolution 2, Series 2020, <br />recommending approval of a second amendment to the St Louis Parish and <br />Commercial Park General Development Plan with the following conditions: <br />• The applicant shall revise the application to provide for a minimum of a 55 foot <br />building and parking setback <br />• The applicant shall revise the GDP height limits within Zone 2A to be a maximum <br />of 25 ft if a pitched roof is provided or 20 ft if slanted roofline architectural <br />elements are provided. <br />Motion passes 4-1 by a roll call vote. <br />Name Vote <br />Tom Rice Yes <br />Steve Brauneis Yes <br />Keaton Howe Yes <br />Ben Diehl No <br />Jeff Moline Yes <br /> <br />Motion passed/failed: Passed <br /> <br />Howe moves and Moline seconds a motion to continue agenda items C and D for the <br />July 9, 2020 meeting. Motion passes unanimously by a roll call vote. <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS